June 03, 2005
Cheap Tubes, Inc. announces the immediate availability of economically priced Carbon Nanotubes (CNTs), for a wide range of research and industrial applications.

Standard CNTs available from stock include both Single-Walled Nanotubes (SWNTs) and Multi-Walled Nanotubes (MWNTs), in quantities ranging from one gram to kilograms and larger amounts. Both SWNTs and MWNTs are available in purified forms, or else functionalized with -OH or -COOH groups to facilitate their use in various applications. Other types of CNTs, including "as produced mwnts" are available upon request. Amine Functionalized CNTs coming soon, as well as short <2000nm length SWNTs and MWNTs.

Cheap Tubes' CNTs can be used for a wide variety of commercial applications, including manufacture of CNT-polymeric composite materials, industrial grade MWNTs up to >95% purity are available in metric ton quantities (one million grams) for $0.40 per gram). Other, 80%-90% MWNTs can be purchased in metric ton quantities for $0.25 per gram. Metric ton quantities have a 90 day lead time.

or else functionalized with -OH or -COOH groups to facilitate their use in various applications.

Nice link Matt. One thing left me curious though ... do you even know what, just for example, the above line means? I presume you do, because then you can also give us a little context associated with why this would be interesting to us ... unless of course you simply decided to regurgitate someone else's press release on the basis of some industry buzz-words which get you all excited for no reason you can properly identify.

I should apoligize for what I said, although at the time you said a few things that I didn't enjoy reading and I thought you could be quite rude in your replies. Again, I am sorry if you were offended.

The carboxylic group consists of a carbon atom doubly bonded to an oxygen atom and single bonded to a hydroxyl -OH group. It is the univalent acid radical (-COOH or -C02 H)

To be honest keith I have no detailed knowledge of this stuff and I was simply sharing what I had found in todays news on the internet. As many people know around here, carbon nanotubes have a massive part to play in space applications. Just thought i'd update you on progress.

Last edited by whoa182 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Matt - Wrong answer. I wanted the context in which these chemistries are meaningful, I didn't want a weak repetition of their definition (you mis-spelt univalent). The clue here for you is that from my perspective you don't understand the import of these details or even where they are useful, and you don't have the mental hardware required to introduce it into the frame of a discussion. You merely latched onto the phrase "carbon-nanotube" like it was some sort of holy sign that you needed to wave madly in our faces. If that was what these forums were for then they would be filled to overflowing every day with empty context-less newsfeeds about the latest and greatest breakthroughs in every field of development which could even be conceivably related to spaceflight.

Everybody else here raises technological advance with some sort of context associated with it. In other words, they have a point of their own associated with the thing they are introducing and are unafraid to air that point in the forum. If they find a newsfeed and have no further comment then they send it to Sigurd for the news page.

You, on the other hand, just gave us a newsfeed with no context, no comment and (let's face it) obviously no idea of it's consequence.

So let's give you a chance to turn this into a meaningful thread. Just give me some real-world applications of nanotubes which are relevant to these forums? Try not to use the words "future" or "potential", because coming from you any predictions concerning the future applicability of the latest technological advance are meaningless.

The last I read on nano-tube technology they had managed to grow the things to a length of about 30cm (with the asistence of water to the best of my recollection), have researchers been able to surpass this and if so to what degree?

I have often wondered how these strands will be used, will they be woven into a mesh or simply tangled together lke felt to form a mat. It seems to me that either approach will not result in an airtight fabric or sheet material and that additional materials will have to be added to form composites maybe something like fibreglass does with resin.

So if a composite material is created will there be the savings in weight that everyone is expecting and will the spacecraft be as strong as has been suggested?

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

It has been a german one if I remeber right this moment and it described that and how scientists have "drawn" a long "cable" of nanotubes. I remember that article having said or quoted that the scientists could draw an endless long cable if they had wanted.

But it was an experiment only- and so they terminated the process. That article said that a molecule and/or an atom has been used to draw.

LiftPort Group, the Space Elevator companies, recently announced plans for a carbon nanotube manufacturing plant, the company's first formal facility for production of the material on a commercial scale.

LiftPort Nanotech will make and sell carbon nanotubes to glass, plastic and metal companies, which will in turn synthesize them into other stronger, lighter materials (also known as composites) for use in their applications. Already being used by industries such as automotive and aerospace manufacturing, carbon nanotube composites are lighter than fiberglass and have the potential to be up to 100 times stronger than steel.

Matt - thanks for finally finally making the most tenuous of connections to these forums. Now tell me your opinion (again, just for example) on liftport's countdown ... you quote it, but you don't tell me what you think of it.

For my part I think it's hilarious. The reason I think it's funny is that no single date prediction (which includes the month AND day), predicated on the invention of as yet inconceived technologies, has EVER been accurate. It's a marketing device and no more.

Therefore your uncritical regurgitation tells me the following ...

You haven't really given it any thought whatsoever, you probably believe unquestioningly in a great many things on the basis of hope alone, and you know virtually nothing about the subject at all. Your post is likely a device merely to garner recognition for your apparent "participation" in "discussion" on the subject.

Prove me wrong. Tell me your thoughts, explain why you think that liftport has a valid role in the development of future orbit technologies, prove to me you have some fundamental understanding of the difference between manufacturing a base product and its supposed use in a technology which is so far into its infancy that its grandparents are as yet unborn.

Well, we can't laugh at aero corp but we can laugh at this company? A bit of a hypocracy imo.

But, the most laughable thing imo is that they use Lego (TM) for their prototypes. It's cheap and fast to build off course, but it's in no way a prototype. I'm not sure if they are serious, they say they build a complete nanotube factory, and on the other hand they play with Lego...

Edwards, the author of the NIAC study suggesting and proposing the Space Elevator seriously, designed the following method to get the cable in place:

1. The cable is carried to GEO by a vehicle.
2. The cable with its roll is released and the vehicle moves away.
3. The cable starts to roll down to the earthian surface
4. The cable is going to be connected to its anchor.
5. Several climbers climb up the cable and serve as counterweight.

During that process the spaceward end of the cable connected to the roller will have to be moved farther away from Earth.

The cable will experience tense this way permanently.

I don't know if it would be that massive - if it were a squared then the volume would be
10^-9 m * 10^-9m * 10^8m = 10^-10m^3. If several cables would be joined to make the whole 1 m wide the volume would be 10^-1 m^3. 0.0000000001 m^3 or 0.1 m^3 would be the result if I understood correct Edwards' image of it.